Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions

[digitaldog]

I was pointing out that there is a potential solution....not commenting/promoting on Corel as a company or their products.

The issue is your potential solutions are so beyond ridiculous they seem like a form of digital imaging comedy. The bit about the JPEG in the raw was a riot.

[Janne Aavasalo]

And to be fair, you could remove Adobe and add Intuit, or MS, or any other company that makes software.

In a way yes, but if I go from Win98 -> Win2000 -> WinXP, skip Vista (because, well you know...) -> Win7 and skip Win8, I have the option to do so and my Win7 still works even though I'm not going to upgrade. The Adobe way of thinking is CS6 -> CC7 -> CC8 -> CC9 -> CC10 and then for one reason or another I can't pay the subscription anymore -> CS6. There's a fundamental difference between these models (renting / owning) and that difference is the key here.

After hundreds of posts here, that sum's it up damn well!

Good

I don't know if that's directed specifically at me or not. But the yes, I make my living using Photoshop and other such tools and in my case, I have no options even if many parts of this new scheme I don't care for. I don't like it when the price of gas goes up but I still have to do a 170 mile round trip to get to the airport with the laptop running Photoshop I use to make a living.

I thought that this was the scenario and if I were in the same situation, I'd probably think the same way as you. It's the cost of doing business, but the return is still greater than the expense, so it's not a big deal. Perhaps I even raise my own fee to compensate.

What I was referring to earlier is that this isn't the case for all users, so there are different levels of annoyance caused by this move.

[nma]

There is a whole cottage industry which exists solely to teach and explain Adobe PS and LR to the unwashed masses. Some in that industry are Adobe apologists who to some degree exist because Adobe has little-to-no interest in providing useful help to their users. I am wondering how they feel today? Do they think this move to the cloud will help their business? What if there are fewer or no more numbered releases, just continuous upgrades, what will happen to the latest and greatest version of Photoshop Explained? What about all those PS workshops? What will Lynda do?

[jrsforums]

The issue is your potential solutions are so beyond ridiculous they seem like a form of digital imaging comedy. The bit about the JPEG in the raw was a riot.

I know you understand "analogy".  I don't think I need to render a definition.

5D3 jpegs are quite large, btw.

Your penchant for jumping to extremes is interesting.  

I guess you never have any desire or need to  go back an modify a wip image, rather than restarting the raw or modifying the flattened tiff.  As you know, things like sharpening or blurring in a flattened cannot be easily fix, but are easy in the layered version.

Last...OK....you pay your subscription....then Adobe pulls a "Kodak".....ooops....

[AFairley]

If I stick with CS6, for which I own a perpetual licence, I can be confident that I will be able to open my files for the foreseeable future.

Unless Adobe shuts down the activation servers, in which case CS6 will not run (without a crack).  The perpetual license does not insualte you from all bad things.

[David Luery]

Instead of this silly idea that we can move to future versions of software, then back when we wish and obtain all the same functionally, the same people should just start working on a time machine.  Their efforts might be better served.

But I don't think that is what most of us are saying.  I wouldn't expect to be able to edit images in CC, using new CC-only functionality, and then also be able to edit them in CS6.  What I want / hope for is the ability to continue editing and re-editing images in the version of CC that was current at the time I decided to 'jump off the train.'  That would be directly analogous to how software with a perpetual license works.

Best regards,

David

[Peter McLennan]

There is a whole cottage industry which exists solely to teach and explain Adobe PS and LR to the unwashed masses. Some in that industry are Adobe apologists who to some degree exist because Adobe has little-to-no interest in providing useful help to their users.

Huh?  No help? Really?  Ever watched any of the tutorials on Adobe TV?  Julianne Kost, for example, offers some of the best training for PS and LR available anywhere.  Superb instruction. Inspiration, even. Free.

[AFairley]

Absolutely.

Here are some other views from different angles:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/05/microsoft-office-wont-go-subscription-only-anytime-soon/
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1412811-adobe-jumps-off-a-cliff-leaves-parachute-behind?source=yahoo

Cheers,
Bart

Adobe's gross margins are 89%?!!  Jesus, and they want to wring even more money out of their customers??  http://seekingalpha.com/article/1412811-adobe-jumps-off-a-cliff-leaves-parachute-behind?source=yahoo

[digitaldog]

5D3 jpegs are quite large, btw.

Tell me more, how big?
Tell me that equates to the rendering I want, in the color space I want, in the bit depth I want and the full resolution I expect.

I guess you never have any desire or need to  go back an modify a wip image, rather than restarting the raw or modifying the flattened tiff.  As you know, things like sharpening or blurring in a flattened cannot be easily fix, but are easy in the layered version.

I was editing images in Photoshop years before there was anything but a flatted image.

Look, I don't know who you are, what you do for a living, anything about your 'chops' because you find it necessary to post here anonymously. That alone says a lot. The idea of yours that the embedded JPEG in a raw in any way comes close to equating the raw itself is the kind of idea you'll get more traction from less educated users on DP Review. You should try talking with far less educated users there, LuLa is the place where most people will laugh out at such ideas. I've tried to explain my points to you a number of times and now, with your last concept of embedded JPEGs in raws, you've convinced me I'm reading DP Review newbie misunderstanding of image processing. Sorry, you're best ignored IMHO.

[digitaldog]

What I want / hope for is the ability to continue editing and re-editing images in the version of CC that was current at the time I decided to 'jump off the train.'  That would be directly analogous to how software with a perpetual license works.

I understand that's what you want. I'd like it too. It isn't in the works and I wouldn’t hold your breath. If that was how it worked, it wouldn't be a subscription.


sub·scrip·tion 
/səbˈskripSHən/
Noun
The action of making or agreeing to make an advance payment in order to receive or participate in something.
An arrangement by which access is granted to an online service.

[David Luery]

I understand that's what you want. I'd like it too. It isn't in the works and I wouldn’t hold your breath. If that was how it worked, it wouldn't be a subscription.


sub·scrip·tion 
/səbˈskripSHən/
Noun
The action of making or agreeing to make an advance payment in order to receive or participate in something.
An arrangement by which access is granted to an online service.

Hmm.  Most things I subscribe to, like magazines (yes, I still get print magazines), leave me with something tangible when I end my subscription.  I can -- and do -- go back and read back issues of magazines to which I no longer subscribe.  And it's also true of things I subscribe to electronically, at least those that send or let me download pdfs.  But in any event, nothing in the definition you quote necessarily implies that the thing subscribed to must go poof and disappear at the end of the subscription.

As to what's in the works or not, one can hope if enough people express dissatisfaction then Adobe might modify their plans (or not).  So that is what I am  doing, expressing my dissatisfaction in what I hope is a reasoned manner.

Best regards,

David

[nma]

Huh?  No help? Really?  Ever watched any of the tutorials on Adobe TV?  Julianne Kost, for example, offers some of the best training for PS and LR available anywhere.  Superb instruction. Inspiration, even. Free.

To that i reply: Have you ever tried the product help?

[digitaldog]

Hmm.  Most things I subscribe to, like magazines (yes, I still get print magazines), leave me with something tangible when I end my subscription.

We've been over this but... Many subscriptions don't (subscriptions to rent a video on NetFlix, your cell phone and cable).

One can argue that the tangible item the CC subscription provides you is an document with an image in it. What's the net result, the something tangible of subscribing to CC and not using it?

As to what's in the works or not, one can hope if enough people express dissatisfaction then Adobe might modify their plans (or not).  So that is what I am  doing, expressing my dissatisfaction in what I hope is a reasoned manner.

And you should! I'm on the side of the fence that says complain, don't purchase, make stink etc. I kind of suspect Adobe's thought of this but heck, if the blowback is so huge, maybe something will change. Don't NOT be pissed or make a stink. 

[Mark D Segal]

Adobe's gross margins are 89%?!!  Jesus, and they want to wring even more money out of their customers??  http://seekingalpha.com/article/1412811-adobe-jumps-off-a-cliff-leaves-parachute-behind?source=yahoo

Go to their 10-K and examine their accounts. Gross margins don't mean anything. Net Income relative to net assets in operation is a more meaningful metric of corporate performance. You'd get a more realistic picture. They do well as a company, but don't go overboard.

[s4e]

Sorry to disappoint you but, I actually agree with the direction Adobe is going. I think it makes good technical sense to get out of the 18-24 month dev cycle and out from underneath the accounting constraints caused by revenue recognition restrictions that will allow the engineers to add new features when you are ready instead of waiting till the next big product launch. Trying to maintain both a subscription model AND a perpetual model is unsustainable...engineering had all sorts of problems with the recent 13.1/13.0.4 updates and the engineering staff gave up their holidays to pitch in and fix them. That was the end of the idea of trying to maintain both models.

What really upset me and a LOT of other users is that your software stop working if you stop paying. That is the BIG mistake in this model and I cant find any technical reason for this - can you?

As far as pushing Adobe in a "better direction to support many of your own customers" exactly who do you think are my customers? I don't have any customers....I gave up working for clients years ago. If you are referring to software or video tutorials, sorry, that's not my responsibility.

So you do video and write books for free? And contribute with sharpening technology for free?

[digitaldog]

Perhaps I even raise my own fee to compensate.

YES! 2nd best post here <g>.

Lots of business incur increases in their cost of business and if they can, pass it onto the customer. Maybe this is a sliver lining of sorts from Adobe, especially with the huge blow back on the net in just the last 36 hours. Many of our customers may be well aware of this price increase. Or just let them know. But yes, if your cost to do business goes up thanks to Adobe AND you must use Photoshop, pass some or all of the costs to them if you can. You have justification unlike every time the price of gas goes up for a month, due to some excuse at a refiners somewhere.

[digitaldog]

And contribute with sharpening technology for free?

Yes but only for 7 days (it's called a demo) <g>

[s4e]

I approach this from the point of view of an amateur or hobbyist photographer, so from Adobe's point I'm probably in the minority of the minority.  And a hobbyist who will soon be retiring and will at some point have less to spend on this wonderful hobby than I have had in the past.  Nonetheless, my intention is to subscribe for as long as I can afford to do so precisely because I do want the new functionality.  But I think your analogy about re-editing in an older version is not appropriate.  For instance, if I did not subscribe, I would continue to be able to use CS6 and I could continue to edit and re-edit any images I had edited in it.  I have lost no functionality.  But if I subscribe to CC and use its new functionality in my editing, then at some point drop my subscription, as I understand things, I would no longer be able to use CC and so I would no longer be able to re-edit any images that incorporated CC functionality that was not in CS6.  So the two situations are not at all analogous.

On the other hand, if Adobe were to 'freeze' your version of CC at the point at which you stopped subscribing, then I could continue to re-edit images previously edited in CC.  That would be entirely analogous to the current situation with perpetually licensed software.  While not entirely happy with the subscription idea, I can live with it (until I can no longer afford it) if Adobe would allow subscribers to freeze their version of PS CC at the point in time the choose to stop subscribing.

Best regards,

David

This is in my view the key mistake Adobe made. If they have done as you suggest David many would be quite happy with the new model.

[jwstl]

We've been over this but... Many subscriptions don't (subscriptions to rent a video on NetFlix, your cell phone and cable).

I don't think those are fair comparisons. Yes, when I stop paying for cable and Netflix I no longer receive the movies and TV shows. However, the movie studios and networks that provide the shows and movies also provide ways for me to own those shows via DVDs, Blu-ray, downloads etc. So I have the choice to rent or to own. Adobe no longer gives that option. And, while I think the subscription service is great for medium to large businesses it doesn't make sense for individuals and small businesses.

[Mark D Segal]

.......... I kind of suspect Adobe's thought of this but heck, if the blowback is so huge, maybe something will change. 

Possibly, but big open question. I would really like to hope so, but if you are Adobe you are looking at the numbers: I don't really know what they are, but if the ballpark to date is somewhere in the neighbourhood of half a million subscribers versus a few dozen - even very loud and reasonable - complainers - not so clear...........